More Steroids crap

[Northcott]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you don't want to hear about it, don't read the fucking thread. Wankers.

To those of you who have even the slightest interest in this oddness, the recent big bust that's been all over the news has (of course) gotten the T-nation crowd in a buzz. So for those of you who haven't watched the news, I present a link:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=jo-steroids092407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns



And then there's this report (Youtube link) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=h9DSzeuFVJU) from what seems to be an American program. If one of you could tell me where this is from, I'd appreciate it. I did a double-take at the blunt way in which they tackled the issue, and actually looked at medical evidence, studies, etc. That's frighteningly rare in journalism these days.

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. If you don't want to hear about it, don't read the fucking thread. Wankers.

To those of you who have even the slightest interest in this oddness, the recent big bust that's been all over the news has (of course) gotten the T-nation crowd in a buzz. So for those of you who haven't watched the news, I present a link:
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=jo-steroids092407&prov=yhoo&type=lgns



And then there's this report (Youtube link) (http://youtube.com/watch?v=h9DSzeuFVJU) from what seems to be an American program. If one of you could tell me where this is from, I'd appreciate it. I did a double-take at the blunt way in which they tackled the issue, and actually looked at medical evidence, studies, etc. That's frighteningly rare in journalism these days.

I've read the article and passing it to a friend who's a big sports buff AND a toxicologist - he'll have interesting things to say for sure.

Ancalagon

[Northcott]

I can't wait to hear it, Anc. :) Did you send him both links?

There seems to be a building conflict over this. Quiet and slow, but I think that there might be a backlash against this phase of the "war on drugs" building. Part of what irks me about it is, that much like the anti-drug hype of the 50's, the exaggerated or blatantly erroneous claims are undermining attempts at warning youth off of using the substance irresponsibly. Since much of what they hear in warning is utter bullshit, and the evidence for that stance is all around them (given the rates of steroid useage in North America), there's the fear of any warning being dismissed as bullshit.

[TiQuinn]

The show is on HBO: Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.

I have two problems with steroid use, both intentionally not covered by the show, though mentioned. Children using steroids and professional athletes using steroids. How do people propose to make steroid use legal while trying to prevent children (think high school football players) from putting themselves at risk? The second is more a problem with professional sports and the media in general. I want to see a level playing field across the board, first off. Second, I don't want to be lied to. I want the media to stop trying to tell me that Babe Ruth's accomplishments are somehow the same as Mark McGwire's or Barry Bonds'.

[cnath.rm]

I want the media to stop trying to tell me that Babe Ruth's accomplishments are somehow the same as Mark McGwire's or Barry Bonds'.QFT, though I'll take McGwire over Bonds as he seems less of an ass. (could be wrong of course)

[TiQuinn]

QFT, though I'll take McGwire over Bonds as he seems less of an ass. (could be wrong of course)


McGwire's probably less of an ass, but he's benefitted considerably from getting out of baseball before the steroid issue really hit.

[Northcott]

The show is on HBO: Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.

Thanks, man! It's the only media clip I've ever seen that puts the issue under a more direct light.

How do people propose to make steroid use legal while trying to prevent children (think high school football players) from putting themselves at risk?

There are three responses that leap to mind for me right now:
1) Do you really think they're not already using them? In droves? Some surveys have indicated that perhaps as many as 80% of highschool first-liners have experimented with steroids already. They're not hard to get, and apparently not hard to make. All those mini-labs the cops just busted? Give it six months, and there'll be replacements for every one of them.

2) I think a much greater disservice is currently done by telling kids a pack of lies about the potential side-effects they'll suffer. The current hype on steroids reminds me of the anti-pot movement of the 1950's. Reefer Madness! You'll hallucinate, kill your family, and marry the neighbour's dog! When the lies are stretched too far and kids can see the truth of it all around them, the ability to tell them that something is unhealthy completely evaporates.

The best thing for them is the truth: they're at the highest point of natural testosterone production in their lives, and their bodies are still growing -- and will continue to develop until their early 20's. Perhaps a little beyond. Bones thickening, connective tissues strengthening, etc. Taking steroids during this period shuts off growth mechanisms. It sabotages long-term strength and speed potential, and may even cost you a couple inches in height.

If they're to be indulged in, it should be as a fully developed adult male, mid-20's at least, or you're short changing yourself. That truth alone is enough to get most of the athletic crowd to show some patience.

3) In terms of legal controls: we've got them for underage smoking and drinking, too. We can put them in place for legalized steroids to make the hand-wringers feel better, but educating people with the truth tends to work much better.

I want to see a level playing field across the board, first off.

I'll admit that I'm culturally programmed to dislike the idea of steroids in sports, too. I heard an interesting idea put forth, though; abuse of steroids can lead to noteable decreases in key health markers: bad cholesterol rising dramatically, blood pressure elevating dangerously, etc. Rather than testing athletes for steroids, run blood tests that check for their overall health indicators, and suspend them from play should those prove out of whack.

If they've all got equal access to steroids, how is the playing field uneven? But if you're punishing them for endangering their health, then potential for abuse is limited and the image that comes back to the public is one of health and vitality. A positive change.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by the notion, but it's an interesting idea.

Second, I don't want to be lied to. I want the media to stop trying to tell me that Babe Ruth's accomplishments are somehow the same as Mark McGwire's or Barry Bonds'.

I've no idea about Ruth, but there's been some mention of (iirc -- baseball's not my thing) that Hank Aaron was using coke and amphetamines to spike his performance levels. That may not give you steroid-level advantages, but it'll sure as hell jack up your reaction time and speed -- an advantage that non-drug users don't have.

[TiQuinn]

1) Do you really think they're not already using them? In droves? Some surveys have indicated that perhaps as many as 80% of highschool first-liners have experimented with steroids already. They're not hard to get, and apparently not hard to make. All those mini-labs the cops just busted? Give it six months, and there'll be replacements for every one of them.

So what are you suggesting? Tell them that because they're already using it in droves, there should be no laws on their use despite the fact that it's particularly dangerous for teenagers?

The best thing for them is the truth: they're at the highest point of natural testosterone production in their lives, and their bodies are still growing -- and will continue to develop until their early 20's. Perhaps a little beyond. Bones thickening, connective tissues strengthening, etc. Taking steroids during this period shuts off growth mechanisms. It sabotages long-term strength and speed potential, and may even cost you a couple inches in height.

If they're to be indulged in, it should be as a fully developed adult male, mid-20's at least, or you're short changing yourself. That truth alone is enough to get most of the athletic crowd to show some patience.

That's not the entire truth, though. The truth is that despite the fact that it's harmful to teens, adults and professional athletes are using it to get ahead in their respective sports, and that is the benchmark for where a lot of teens are aiming for. Professional athletes are role models whether they want to be or not. Teams at the college level and ultimately the pro level are implictly pushing teens who want to try and compete to do steroids. It's not just a simple matter of telling teens that this is bad for their health: There is a LOT of pressure out there for them to use them.



I'll admit that I'm culturally programmed to dislike the idea of steroids in sports, too. I heard an interesting idea put forth, though; abuse of steroids can lead to noteable decreases in key health markers: bad cholesterol rising dramatically, blood pressure elevating dangerously, etc. Rather than testing athletes for steroids, run blood tests that check for their overall health indicators, and suspend them from play should those prove out of whack.

If they've all got equal access to steroids, how is the playing field uneven? But if you're punishing them for endangering their health, then potential for abuse is limited and the image that comes back to the public is one of health and vitality. A positive change.

I would say remove the restriction on steroids in pro sports if it didn't go hand in hand with steroid abuse at the college and ultimately, the high school level. Find a way to break that connection, and I think it's fine. At least people could be honest about the comparisons in that case.

I've no idea about Ruth, but there's been some mention of (iirc -- baseball's not my thing) that Hank Aaron was using coke and amphetamines to spike his performance levels. That may not give you steroid-level advantages, but it'll sure as hell jack up your reaction time and speed -- an advantage that non-drug users don't have.

I've heard that as well. Don't know if they ever tested him for it or not.

[Northcott]

So what are you suggesting? Tell them that because they're already using it in droves, there should be no laws on their use despite the fact that it's particularly dangerous for teenagers?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying outright that the current load of BS pushed as propaganda to support the War on Drugs is only harming the "think of the children!1!!!" portion of the cause. I agree that kids shouldn't be touching this stuff. It seems that a similar attitude is prevalent among the steroid-using subculture as well. The forums where such people post are riddled with no-holds-barred hammering of kids who peek in asking about AAS, telling them outright what it will do to them, and pointing out when it's safer to use and what they should do to maximize gains until that point.

The current laws, hand in hand with the "war on drugs", are dismal failures. An alternate path must be found. Personally, I believe that open, rational dialogue based on facts will best serve that end.


That's not the entire truth, though. The truth is that despite the fact that it's harmful to teens, adults and professional athletes are using it to get ahead in their respective sports, and that is the benchmark for where a lot of teens are aiming for. Professional athletes are role models whether they want to be or not. Teams at the college level and ultimately the pro level are implictly pushing teens who want to try and compete to do steroids. It's not just a simple matter of telling teens that this is bad for their health: There is a LOT of pressure out there for them to use them.

There is. There's also a great deal of misunderstanding about what those risks are. When you shift the description of risks away from Reefer Madness level of BS, which even MDs seem to buy into without critical examination of the subject (and that scares the shit out of me given their power and prestiege in society), I think it stands a better chance of succeeding.

As you point out, there's a great deal of pressure to use -- and that pressure comes because of this fanatic, foolish level of worship that seems to occur for success in sports. But that can be used as a productive point. The truth is that use of AAS too early in a kid's career can sabotage his end potential. As the coaches, parents, and kids are obsessive about realizing full potential, about producing/becoming that next Big Thing in their chosen sport, it may help temper the number of users.

There will still, undoubtedly, be many foolish individuals who pursue that path. They will exist regardless. It makes little sense to punish the majority for the potential actions of a minority. To tailor one's stance on public health issues based around the arbitrary fairness of sports.

The youth demographic can hardly see an increase in risk. With potential use up around 80% by some guesstimates, I'd say the damage is already done. Even if that number were 40-60%, I'd say that the War on Drugs in this corner is a dismal loss.


I would say remove the restriction on steroids in pro sports if it didn't go hand in hand with steroid abuse at the college and ultimately, the high school level. Find a way to break that connection, and I think it's fine. At least people could be honest about the comparisons in that case.

I think that the use of health markers would be a first, big step in that regard, shifting the focus of what controls are placed on athletes. The second thing is to take control of the problem rather than fighting it: ride the bull instead of wrestling it.

Obviously I don't have this thing entirely worked out -- I wish I had a comprehensive solution to the problem. But I think it's pretty undeniable that the problem is out of control with the current set of controls and measures, and I don't think a more draconian approach and/or an increase in propaganda will solve it.

More often than not what's happening is that otherwise law-abiding citizens who lead productive lives as accountants, doctors, blue and white collar workers -- even cops and fire-fighters (who, I think, have an excellent case for use given the physical danger of their job) -- are being chased down for using a substance that's far less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol. That money's better spent on trying to clamp down on crimes that are actually harmful to society at large: child porn, rape, murder, crystal meth production, etc.

[TiQuinn]

As the coaches, parents, and kids are obsessive about realizing full potential, about producing/becoming that next Big Thing in their chosen sport, it may help temper the number of users.

And that's what I just don't believe will happen. I don't see it tempering the problem, but exacerbating it further.

[Northcott]

And that's what I just don't believe will happen. I don't see it tempering the problem, but exacerbating it further.

I think that to exacerbate it further you'd have to push the numbers up in the 90th percentile, or even acheive 100% use -- and frankly, I think that's highly unrealistic.

The problem is already well past epidemic proportions. Right now most are acting off of flawed information, believing that steroids offer some sort of Holy Grail of acheivement that they can't touch normally. The bogus talk of hyped-up or outright spurious side-effects such as going mad, spontaneously becoming a murderer, being driven to suicide, having your dick shrink, etc -- these things only serve to make the truth a harder sell. These exaggerated or false claims are also the only way that the government can continue to justify the hard narcotic standing in law that steroids currently hold.

The nearest comparison to the situation is prohibition, which was notoriously ineffective.

[Snatch]

More often than not what's happening is that otherwise law-abiding citizens who lead productive lives as accountants, doctors, blue and white collar workers -- even cops and fire-fighters (who, I think, have an excellent case for use given the physical danger of their job) -- are being chased down for using a substance that's far less dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol. That money's better spent on trying to clamp down on crimes that are actually harmful to society at large: child porn, rape, murder, crystal meth production, etc.

Are you still talking about steroids here? I wasn't aware there were raids on people using steroids.

[TiQuinn]

I think that to exacerbate it further you'd have to push the numbers up in the 90th percentile, or even acheive 100% use -- and frankly, I think that's highly unrealistic.

Where did you find the 80% number to begin with? That also seems unrealistically high to start.

[Northcott]

Where did you find the 80% number to begin with? That also seems unrealistically high to start.

One of the "think of the children!!1!!" articles on steroids from yeeeears back. It may have been SI that printed it, but as I very rarely read that it was more likely MacLean's or the ever-dubious Time. And to clarify, my original statement was "Some surveys have indicated that perhaps as many as 80% of highschool first-liners have experimented with steroids already". (edit: First-stringers? Football's not my sport. I probably fucked up the terminology.) I should have indicated right off that it was being drawn from memory, however. My bad.

I don't for a moment believe that steroids will ever be as popular as something like pot, which has a much broader appeal and requires much less effort and thought in using. On that note, I also believe that pot should be legalized. I think that's a massive waste of taxpayer's money as well, and erodes trust in the truthiness (I love that non-word!) in the authorities due to exaggerated claims made about it.


Are you still talking about steroids here? I wasn't aware there were raids on people using steroids.

Check the first link I posted. The funny thing about steroids is that because most users are socially stable, gainfully employed folks, and the means of transaction are much more 'white collar' than other outlawed substances, the money trail is very easy to follow. The result is that it's far, far easier for cops to arrange busts of steroid users and makers than it is makers of something like crystal meth, without the danger of dealing with hardcore drug dealers or unstable crackheads. In short: it's an easy headline with little to no risk. It makes the higher-ups, the people in the bureaucratic chain, look good.

The other funny thing about this is that there have been two 'major busts' like this in the past (iirc); 2005 and 2002. In each case these 'major blows' to the steroid industry resulted in a few months of down time, a few more months of rebuilding, and then things were humming along as normal. The cops normally ignore steroid users as: a) there are police officers who use themselves, b) the users are normally people who fit well into society and lead productive lives, c) there are much bigger and more dangerous fish to fry. During these big raids, however, they're ordered to start hammering down on the white collar users, leaning on them to try and get a more solid case against the suppliers, while making examples of a few others to try and scare the general populace into line.

The closest analogy is the pot scene, where similar bungling has made a mountain out of a molehill.

[Northcott]

One of the pages promoting awareness of the teen steroid abuse phenomenon, with a considerable mix of facts, conjecture, and outright BS: http://www.coolnurse.com/steroids.htm

Their notes on legal nutritional supplements are particularly hair-raising in terms of alarmist innaccuracy. They're claiming upwards of 3% of teens in total have used steroids by Grade 12; they don't break it down into subsets of gender and/or sports, however.

This one (http://www.quickregister.net/articles/ROI/Steroids_and_Teens__A_Problem_on_the_Rise.html) talks about a CDC report in 2003 that claims just over 6% of all teenagers have been monkeying with anabolics, with specific subsets rising near 8% (Hispanic males clocking in at 7.8%). That's just over 1,000,000 across the USA -- and that's only the ones who admitted to it. The same page, however, also cites some really nutty claims -- that on anabolics a teen can put on 20-30 lbs of lean muscle a month. A heavy cycle might profit them 15+ lbs in a month and a half to two months, but a chunk of that will be water rentention/bloating that will disappear within a couple weeks off. The usual exaggerated claims of side-effects is present as well.

I'm of the belief that exagerrating both the potency and the sides is a grave error. Kids will ignore risk and chase advancement, particularly if the risks look like 'vapourware' that only seem to hit people in sensationalistic news reports. I believe that, like pot, the best way to handle it would be to legalize, it tax it, and get the truth out there about how to deal with it in a healthy and responsible manner. The really nasty sides that seem to have genuine occurance, such as depression and mood swings, come not from use of the anabolics themselves, but from ignorance in how to use them safely: those sides do not appear with people who use proper post-cycle therapy. This neglect of information with the intent of creating a greater sense of menace is just as irreponsible as the Catholic Church's condemnation of birth control in 3rd world countries. IMHO, it's a reprehensible act to purposely exaggerate risk, withhold information, and allow the lives of people to be ruined simply for a measure of societal control.



Personally, I think that Rick Collins has the best approach:
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/teenagers-and-anabolic-steroids.htm

I've seen kids come through T-nation and get evicerated by the crew there for asking questions about 'roids when they're considered 'too young' by that sub-culture. A few -- very few -- ignore it. Most take the advice. Some take the advice to the next level and pay stricter attention to their training, rest, and nutrition, and excel.